PERSONAL
Whether or not to accept pro bono design work has never been a question for me. Some designers, particularly those in urban areas, mahy have difficulty choosing which organizations are on the receiving end of their free design services with such a wide variety of nonprofits and charitable causes to choose from. The decision for me was an easy one growing up in a small town - Mt. Pisgah Baptist Church and other organizations that played a significant role in my upbringing. The handful of folks that attend the 175 year old church that sits at a crook in the road in Stumptown, West Virginia are a group of hard-working, generous, close-knit people that know me as well as my own family, but would respond with equal concern to the needs of a stranger. As soon as I had the opportunity to give back to these friends who had given so much to me, I eagerly embraced the task. This is only a small start in designing "...For Good", but if every designer found a cause or group pof people that they felt a deep connection to, we - as an industry - would be well on our way to "supporting those who want to make a difference" as AIGA calls for in Design For A Brighter Future.
INDUSTRIAL
In Brighter Future, Richard Grefe hints at the added bonus for the design industry as a result of Design For Good - an increased awareness of the balue-added benefits of design. Ideally, this discovery would pave the way for the ideas Richard Buchanan outlines in Design and Organizational Change. Truly understanding the difference that design can make will spur organizations to plan for design in their future endeavors, working it into both their timeline and budgets. By embracing design earlier and earlier in their process, businesses would essentially open the door for designers to be increasingly bold and to break out of the realm of the visual into a position to make changes inthe way a business operates. Buchanan writes, "Indeed, design could offer a new way to understand and practice managment, leading to more human-centered organizations." Nowhere is this understanding, and the practice of design attitude more needed than in our own United States government.
NATIONAL
Redesigning America's Future, which outlines 10 proposals for making better use of design in our federal government, was completely new cotent for me and something that I honestly hadn't even thought much about until this point. But what better example of the need for problem-solving with empathy and human-centered solutions than in the government? The document includes a fantastic quote from Jimmy Carter that is every bit as relevant today as when he spoke it, "Good design can help us meet our commitment to improve the efficiency of government... and reaffirm our concern for the human side of government." By beginning on the personal level - choosing a deserving cause to lend our services to, our industry will see a boost, that hopefully will lead to a spot for our contributions on the national stage. And just maybe, designers should think about working towards the pinnacle of using our talents for good... the U.S. presidency. Let's hope for a future election that places a true "designer" in the White House - regardless of age, race, gender, or party affiliation.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
The Business of Design
Robert Fabricant's article from Fast Company on the aging of American design directly contrasts with the idea of designers as business people. When Fabricant lauded American designers for winning a major battle by recognizing and asserting our "strategic" position, I expected much discussion on the fact that designers were improving the culture and bottom line at small and major companies alike. Fabricant wrote "Designers don't just make things easier and simpler to use, we open up new opportunity spaces through a more creative approach to problem solving." Unfortunately, the rest of the article backpedaled into a discussion of purely formal (and usually visual) concerns with no mention of improved ROI, increased market shares, or even shifting corporate culture thanks to design contributions. Rather than encouraging companies to embrace design in all facets, Fabricant reduces designers contribution to merely visual and usability concerns. His attack on Google's black navigation bar, Windows Swiss design and Apple's bookshelf only alienate designers from other business professionals and even cause division among those within the profession as evidenced by the comments attached to this article. Obviously formal concerns such as these are important, but I feel they should be reserved for design-centered publications instead of a business publication such as Fast Company, where designers should be united in their push for inclusion in the "boardrooms" across the country.
I fear that Fabricant's article also runs the risk of making designers appear to lack the ability to work as part of a multidisciplinary team. In Tim Brown's On Being T-Shaped, the IDEO executive uses his own personal experience as a consultant to demonstrate how designers must evolve in order to become integral to the overall success of a business. In addition to formal constraints, designers who are able to factor in business constraints like efficiency and politics position themselves as management consultants and can win over other disciplines by employing design thinking outside of typical "design" boundaries. Proving your individual worth in this way can be a great boost for the design profession as a whole in the eyes of business leaders.
One difficulty for designers can be getting that foot in the door in the first place. Perhaps not every designer is in a position like the one outlined above. This is where measuring and quantifying our work becomes so important. Determining how our contribution improves a company's bottom line lends designers bargaining power and a voice in the boardroom. Bill Breen and Thomas Lockwood outline a few ways to measure the impact of design in Fast Company and in Businessweek respectively. Some of their suggestions are easier to measure than others, but all are useful in showing that design is not merely an expense that must be swallowed, but an investment that directly and indirectly impacts the bottom line. I especially appreciated Breen's closing statement.
Application
Most of my career thus far has been spent as a freelance designer, or as the sole designer for an in-house operation. In either case, I feel that I haven't had the opportunity to prove my worth as Tim Brown advocates, and certainly haven't had access to the sacred, for-important-eyes-only financial information that may allow me to quantify my contribution. The solution to both problems is easy to pinpoint, but much more difficult to act on. I need to be bold. To ask for access to financial information and be able to intelligently explain why. I need to stop thinking of myself as merely a designer and start embodying the attitude that other MBAs and account managers have. I am a hard worker with good ideas (and processes!) that may just lead to a boost in a company's bottom line, whether through increased revenues or cost savings. Thanks to my education as a designer, I can solve a problem. I can work as part of a team. I can be adaptable and learn new skills quickly. I can be Super Designer if I believe it and then back that up with evidence. Even more, I can completely break out of the mold of designer and be Super Employee or Super Entrepreneur if I am willing to take risks and be bold.
I fear that Fabricant's article also runs the risk of making designers appear to lack the ability to work as part of a multidisciplinary team. In Tim Brown's On Being T-Shaped, the IDEO executive uses his own personal experience as a consultant to demonstrate how designers must evolve in order to become integral to the overall success of a business. In addition to formal constraints, designers who are able to factor in business constraints like efficiency and politics position themselves as management consultants and can win over other disciplines by employing design thinking outside of typical "design" boundaries. Proving your individual worth in this way can be a great boost for the design profession as a whole in the eyes of business leaders.
One difficulty for designers can be getting that foot in the door in the first place. Perhaps not every designer is in a position like the one outlined above. This is where measuring and quantifying our work becomes so important. Determining how our contribution improves a company's bottom line lends designers bargaining power and a voice in the boardroom. Bill Breen and Thomas Lockwood outline a few ways to measure the impact of design in Fast Company and in Businessweek respectively. Some of their suggestions are easier to measure than others, but all are useful in showing that design is not merely an expense that must be swallowed, but an investment that directly and indirectly impacts the bottom line. I especially appreciated Breen's closing statement.
"We can no longer get by on being the wacky creatives who can't be held to any kind of standard. The sooner we get over this notion of having to 'speak the language of business' and just get on with it, the better off we'll all be."Most of design history indicates that designers put out a product or poster and then move on to focus on the next client. Adding a new dimension to our workload and following that design and its impact is one way that we can cement our status as professionals. Of course those measurements will not always be easy. Even a purely visual design, a poster for example, has a job to do and we must measure that to determine effectiveness.
Application
Most of my career thus far has been spent as a freelance designer, or as the sole designer for an in-house operation. In either case, I feel that I haven't had the opportunity to prove my worth as Tim Brown advocates, and certainly haven't had access to the sacred, for-important-eyes-only financial information that may allow me to quantify my contribution. The solution to both problems is easy to pinpoint, but much more difficult to act on. I need to be bold. To ask for access to financial information and be able to intelligently explain why. I need to stop thinking of myself as merely a designer and start embodying the attitude that other MBAs and account managers have. I am a hard worker with good ideas (and processes!) that may just lead to a boost in a company's bottom line, whether through increased revenues or cost savings. Thanks to my education as a designer, I can solve a problem. I can work as part of a team. I can be adaptable and learn new skills quickly. I can be Super Designer if I believe it and then back that up with evidence. Even more, I can completely break out of the mold of designer and be Super Employee or Super Entrepreneur if I am willing to take risks and be bold.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Intellectual Property's Relationship to Creativity
The debate concerning IP protection's effect on creativity has always been one that I have difficulty forming an opinion on. Most likely that is because I have worked on few (ok, no) high stakes, high paying, highly secretive projects that would genuinely rely on IP protection. I've found that I usually have to experience the worst of a situation in order to form a solid opinion. Nevertheless, the question of whether IP protection fosters or inhibits creativity is a cross-discipline concern that will probably be further complicated as more companies and industries adopt team-based approaches to problem-solving, as talented individuals become more transient and jump from job-to-job or city-to-city, and even as corporations face greater criticism from a frustrated public demanding transparency in all facets.
One side of the debate posits that IP protection (patents, trademarks & copyrights) is necessary to encourage artists, scientists and inventors to work hard to innovate because they will enjoy credit (usually publicly) for the research, protection from those looking to copycat and make a quick buck, and - in many cases - compensation of some sort. Supporters of this side fear that a lack of IP protection could result in the type of "brain drain" typically linked to socialism, where talented professionals leave (or in this case are unmotivated to develop new ideas) due to fear that someone else will enjoy the fruits of their labor.
On the other end of the spectrum, the argument is that IP protection inhibits "perfect competition." Supporters of this side believe that being first to market (or first to patent/copyright/trademark) does not necessarily mean best. If other creators were allowed to compete, then the public would be better off and companies/inventors would strive harder to innovate. I have a hard time believing that this theory would actually work in the way that it sounds. Although I understand the logic behind it, it seems that it would lead to mayhem.
As in all situations, finding a balance between protection and competition seems key to advancing our society as a whole. Of all the readings, the comment that stood out to me more than any other, was Hugh Dubberly's response to a survey question of whether interface designs should be protected by patents. Dubberly indicated that he did not necessarily agree with granting interface design patents and questioned whether or not true innovation took place within the framework. (emphasis is mine)
I'm not sure where the balance can be reached between protection and competition, but I think Dubberly's idea of considering the impact on society (NOT the company) should be at the core of intellectual property protection decisions.
One side of the debate posits that IP protection (patents, trademarks & copyrights) is necessary to encourage artists, scientists and inventors to work hard to innovate because they will enjoy credit (usually publicly) for the research, protection from those looking to copycat and make a quick buck, and - in many cases - compensation of some sort. Supporters of this side fear that a lack of IP protection could result in the type of "brain drain" typically linked to socialism, where talented professionals leave (or in this case are unmotivated to develop new ideas) due to fear that someone else will enjoy the fruits of their labor.
On the other end of the spectrum, the argument is that IP protection inhibits "perfect competition." Supporters of this side believe that being first to market (or first to patent/copyright/trademark) does not necessarily mean best. If other creators were allowed to compete, then the public would be better off and companies/inventors would strive harder to innovate. I have a hard time believing that this theory would actually work in the way that it sounds. Although I understand the logic behind it, it seems that it would lead to mayhem.
As in all situations, finding a balance between protection and competition seems key to advancing our society as a whole. Of all the readings, the comment that stood out to me more than any other, was Hugh Dubberly's response to a survey question of whether interface designs should be protected by patents. Dubberly indicated that he did not necessarily agree with granting interface design patents and questioned whether or not true innovation took place within the framework. (emphasis is mine)
"Even if it did [take place], limiting use seems to hurt the society as a whole. For example, the notion that Amazon "owns" one-button check out is absurd. Society is harmed by restricting that system to Amazon. [...] Clearly, Amazon did not expend large amounts of time or money to come up with the idea. Not patenting it would not reduce the efforts of others. What's more, granting patents has not resulted in a flurry of research. The result has simply been richer lawyers."
I'm not sure where the balance can be reached between protection and competition, but I think Dubberly's idea of considering the impact on society (NOT the company) should be at the core of intellectual property protection decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)